Abortion Discussion

Ralphdejones

There are some questions, I've not heard any answers to yet :

My understanding is

The woman presented herself to the IFPA at 8 weeks
She didn't get to see a GP until 16 weeks when her friend advised her to go an see one
The HSE were not made aware until 20 weeks
The pregnancy was terminated at 25 weeks

According to Kitty Holland's article, today in the Irish Times, The lady explained to the IFPA that she did not want the child and felt she was 'going to die'.

In their RTE Radio interview today, the IFPA said that they can refer people to a GP, but repeatedly refused to say if they did in this case or not, or why they might not refer somone with medical concerns to a GP.

At 16 weeks, the woman was advised by a friend to see a GP and advise them she was feeling suicidal

Either the IFPA did not refer her to a GP, or she refused to attend, the enquiry would need to determine this.

The other question I have is, for obvious reasons, we don't hear about the abortions that have been carried out under the new current legislation. Does anyone here know how many have been carried out to date ?

aloyisious

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are some questions, I've not heard any answers to yet :

My understanding is

The woman presented herself to the IFPA at 8 weeks
She didn't get to see a GP until 16 weeks when her friend advised her to go an see one
The HSE were not made aware until 20 weeks
The pregnancy was terminated at 25 weeks

According to Kitty Holland's article, today in the Irish Times, The lady explained to the IFPA that she did not want the child and felt she was 'going to die'.

In their RTE Radio interview today, the IFPA said that they can refer people to a GP, but repeatedly refused to say if they did in this case or not, or why they might not refer somone with medical concerns to a GP.

At 16 weeks, the woman was advised by a friend to see a GP and advise them she was feeling suicidal

Either the IFPA did not refer her to a GP, or she refused to attend, the enquiry would need to determine this.

The other question I have is, for obvious reasons, we don't hear about the abortions that have been carried out under the new current legislation. Does anyone here know how many have been carried out to date ?

Q1. It's possible that they may have felt not liking to be drawn into this case publicly. They've already been accused on RTE today by Senator Mullen of being solely interested in promoting abortion. The court hearing the case heard rape allegations and due to the woman's vulnerability, put a non-disclosure order on it's details. That might bind the hands of any group that had been contacted for help by the woman, plus the data-protection laws might tie their lips on specific cases, especially if the woman (through being upset) might have disclosed some details to IFPA that it did not want or need to know.

Q2. Maybe (serious answer) those within the Dail or Seanad may be aware of the info you seek. Certainly, I'd imagine those in the No Abortion camp there-in may know the total figure, and might not be slow to make it available through speaking just the figure out loud under privilege, so the media and public can become aware.

Richard Bingham

Cabaal wrote: »

We can of course but a child at any cost?

Sure there's now a child, a child created from rape who is not wanted by the mother or the society she came from (sex before marriage is bad...hmm that sounds awful familiar).

You have to ask exactly what future that child may have, taken into the system at 25 weeks old isn't a great start.

25 weeks old....so you recognise is as a human from conception!

Brian Shanahan

Nodin wrote: »

Those are responses to Mullen on the radio here
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/today-with-sean-o-rourke/

Basically he says its a conspiracy to get in abortion. Other choice comments -

'would people rather see a child in a hospital incinerator than an incubator?'

'You can do better than the IFPA who are only interested in promoting abortion anyway'

'15,000 is the number of children who were aborted and used to heat British hospitals last year...'

You know I haven't seen inflammatory language like that since I watched a BBC documentary a few years back on the rise of the Nazis to power. Literally.

PopePalpatine

I'm pretty sure Cabaal used the wrong words there.

This seventeen week delay has caused unnecessary pain. At eight weeks, the foetus wouldn't even have a functioning nervous system or brain, and it wouldn't have one for another 14 weeks!

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

25 weeks old....so you recognise is as a human from conception!

You seem to think that simply being human is enough. My appendix is human, so is my wife. I do not consider them to be of equal importance. (In case I need to spell it out to you, my wife means the world to me. I would forego my appendix if it was threatening my life.)

lazygal

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You know I haven't seen inflammatory language like that since I watched a BBC documentary a few years back on the rise of the Nazis to power. Literally.

Ronan has a one size fits all solution to every single crisis pregnancy. Remain pregnant.


It is men like him who took a 14 year old pregnant rape victim to court to stop her having an abortion.

Brian Shanahan

I was listening to Newstalk today in the car, and they put out a lot of good stuff on the issue through talking to relevant experts, basically panning the legislation and advocating for a) a repeal of the 8th and b) a more liberal regime regarding abortions in the country. I especially liked the obstrician from the Rotunda (forget his name) laying into a certaing group of verbose **** calling them a shady extreme organisation with foreign funding, pointing out without naming them that they have no following and no legitimacy, despite their media ubiquity.

But there was one issue which got me thinking, one of their contributors said that [paraphrase] all parties should agree to have a referendum after the next election on the issue, and one of her given reasons was that she was sick and tired of "both extremes" getting personal and personally attacking anybody who doesn't agree with them. First of all if you look at the abortion issue the extremes are a) no abortions allowed and b) forced abortions at the behest of the state. The pro-choice spectrum (from unlimited abortions to abortions only in limited circumstances) is the medium position, as they are not forcing their position on anybody else. And I've not heard of any organisation looking to force abortions on women since May of 1945.
Secondly when she was talking about the insulting language. personal attacks on others and close-minded refusal to accept validity of opposing views, only one crowd came to mind, the anti-abortionists. They are the only ones in the debate using violent language and actions, the only ones attacking the integrity of the opposition, the only ones using ad hominems, the only ones using lies and deceit as their debating strategy and the only ones shrilly denouncing others. It has come to a sad state of affairs that the loudest voices in a debate which concerns the lives and health of living breathing women are those of Iona and the rcc denouncing any action which gives the the freedom to make a choice over what is to be done with their own bodies.

Cabaal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

25 weeks old....so you recognise is as a human from conception!

As pointed out my word usage was poor, so I'll clarify.

I know what I recognise and I dont see a bunch of cells at the moment of conception as equal to a human. End of.

If a women doesn't want a bunch of cells inside her at week 1 or a fetus at week 20 then she is very much entitled to have an abortion,

In this instance the women was raped, so while you may think a bunch of cells should have the same rights as a human you seem to forget about the well being of the adult women they are inside and the fact those cells exist only because the women's rights and bodily integrity were violated as part of a rape.

Is that clear enough for you?

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

25 weeks old....so you recognise is as a human from conception!

If a zygote is "a human from conception", then logically, a pair of identical twins add up to "a human" between them.

As if "logically" had anything to do with it, mind...

Richard Bingham

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The pro-choice spectrum (from unlimited abortions to abortions only in limited circumstances) is the medium position, as they are not forcing their position on anybody else. And I've not heard of any organisation looking to force abortions on women since May of 1945.

Two problems with that;

• Their forcing it on the unborn babies involved, which I recognise don't feature in pro abortion thinking.
• The medium position as promulgated here on boards is that anyone who doesn't agree with abortion is stupid, ignorant religious freak etc.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Secondly when she was talking about the insulting language. personal attacks on others and close-minded refusal to accept validity of opposing views, only one crowd came to mind, the anti-abortionists. They are the only ones in the debate using violent language and actions, the only ones attacking the integrity of the opposition, the only ones using ad hominems, the only ones using lies and deceit as their debating strategy and the only ones shrilly denouncing others.

You have to be having a laugh. I won't write all I could on this as I need to get 8 hours tonight. I'll only say that you lot didn't seem so civilised when you were spitting (literally) vicious abuse at marchers in the Pro Life Vigil on O'Connell Street last year.

Critising someone for using ad hominems is convenient when you are the one who is so selfish that you can't even see that abortion affects more than one person.

The pro abortion argument is being fought on the basis of the 0.1% hard cases. It would be funny if it wasn't tragic. What is the count at now in the US - 53m, that's 53,000,000 lives snuffed out, the vast majority of which were for the sake of convenience but's that's ok cos there where one hundred thousand awful cases in there where the woman really needed an abortion so it was for the greater good.

Absolam

Stark wrote: »

The majority of children born prematurely at 24 weeks gestation end up with severe disabilities.

So you're not aware of any disabilities whatsoever in this particular instance?
Also, your generic assertion doesn't explain the "8 year old embryo" comment?

Stark wrote: »

Well we could rape and force feed a few more women to bring more precious children into the world. The end justifies the means right?

I suppose you could try if you wanted. Is committing violations with sperm and raping and force feeding women something you give a great deal of thought to? What ends does it achieve that you think justify the means?

Absolam

Frito wrote: »

My point being it is not the scope of the IFPA to assess whether suicidal ideation is present, that is the responsibility of the panel.

Which they couldn't have done at 8 weeks, since the panel wasn't convened until she was 23 weeks.

Frito wrote: »

I've had a quick look at section 9 of the act and the guidance documents for health professionals, it seems there needs to be a suspicion of the possibility of suicidal ideation to warrant assessment by the panel.

Which seems to be what happened when she went to see the GP?

Frito wrote: »

I believe there were grounds for her to be referred at 8 weeks gestation, if her account is reliable.

From her account she didn't give anyone (not least a GP) any indication that she wanted to die until she was 16 weeks pregnant; I don't think it's reasonable to assume that not wanting to be pregnant is a cause to infer a desire to commit suicide.

Absolam

Nodin wrote: »

There's the question also of why she was referred to the IFPA considering she has no means to travel.

Would she not have been referred to the IFPA because she was pregnant, and they "provide sexual health, family planning, pregnancy counselling and training services"? They do a little more than just arrange trips for people who want abortions.

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Critising someone for using ad hominems is convenient when you are the one who is so selfish that you can't even see that abortion affects more than one person.

It's curious that this apparent certainty that you're right is here cited as justification for using whatever tactics come to hand -- tactics you would, one imagines, be quick to condemn in your opponents. In fact, you're perfectly happy to condemn people by association, on the basis of behaviour allegedly used by other nasty "pro-abortion" people. Exceptionalism, anyone?

If your cause were so manifestly morally correct as to justify such behaviour, it would hardly need it.

obplayer

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Two problems with that;

• Their forcing it on the unborn babies involved, which I recognise don't feature in pro abortion thinking.
• The medium position as promulgated here on boards is that anyone who doesn't agree with abortion is stupid, ignorant religious freak etc.

You have to be having a laugh. I won't write all I could on this as I need to get 8 hours tonight. I'll only say that you lot didn't seem so civilised when you were spitting (literally) vicious abuse at marchers in the Pro Life Vigil on O'Connell Street last year.

Critising someone for using ad hominems is convenient when you are the one who is so selfish that you can't even see that abortion affects more than one person.

The pro abortion argument is being fought on the basis of the 0.1% hard cases. It would be funny if it wasn't tragic. What is the count at now in the US - 53m, that's 53,000,000 lives snuffed out, the vast majority of which were for the sake of convenience but's that's ok cos there where one hundred thousand awful cases in there where the woman really needed an abortion so it was for the greater good.

No it is not, the vast majority of those abortions were carried out when a collection of cells were possibly going to turn into a potential person. Read some science for goodness sake.

Frito

Absolam wrote: »

Which they couldn't have done at 8 weeks, since the panel wasn't convened until she was 23 weeks.
Which seems to be what happened when she went to see the GP?
From her account she didn't give anyone (not least a GP) any indication that she wanted to die until she was 16 weeks pregnant; I don't think it's reasonable to assume that not wanting to be pregnant is a cause to infer a desire to commit suicide.

At 8 weeks she reported she 'couldn't go on like this' (or words to that effect). Personally I would consider this an indication of potential suicidal ideation given the context of her pregnancy and her social circumstances. And I would also bear in mind the suicidal ideation may not have evolved due to plans regarding an abortion in uk being actioned. The only reason I would not consider this potential for suicidal ideation to evolve is if I had asked the woman if she felt suicidal at the prospect of continuing the pregnancy. (The woman does not mention if these questions were asked by the ifpa).

But my understanding is there does not need to be overt verbalisation of suicidal ideation, only a suspicion, to warrant review by the panel. Yes the panel convened at 23 weeks, but she could have been referred at 8 weeks. At 16 weeks, she verbalised suicidal ideation during contact with ifpa, but her report is that it was a friend (not the ifpa) who advised her to see a GP some time between weeks 16-23.

We will have to disagree whether there were missed opportunities here (if her account is reliable), not that this is the fault of the ifpa, but a badly designed system.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

For clarity, I wasn't talking about a fetus being a citizen, I was talking about the women.
If you want to count a fetus as a citizen of Ireland then you must also be in favor of any women who drinks alcohol or smokes during pregnancy being charged with supplying such substances to a minor. :rolleyes:

Cripes, you must be getting eyestrain with all those rolleyes.
For clarity, I didn't suggest we were counting foetuses as citizens, aloyisious did.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its a ****ed up country where medical services effectively railroad any women/girl into keeping a rapists fetus if the women/girl doesn't want it.

Obviously that's one point of view. Another point of view would be it's a f***ed up country where you can kill someone to make yourself feel better about a crime that someone else entirely committed against you. A reasonable ethical compromise is probably going to be somewhere between the two.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Cripes, you must be getting eyestrain with all those rolleyes.
For clarity, I didn't suggest we were counting foetuses as citizens, aloyisious did.

Obviously that's one point of view. Another point of view would be it's a f***ed up country where you can kill someone to make yourself feel better about a crime that someone else entirely committed against you.

But presumably, not you, given your above clarification, and your endless policing of others' use of the word "rights", to be used only in concordance with what's been determined to hold under Irish law. Because in Irish law, "obtaining an abortion" and "killing someone" are entirely different categories of activity. Right? (Not that you seem to feel nearly the same need to police those ones, oddly.)

A reasonable ethical compromise is probably going to be somewhere between the two.

Go on, dazzle us with your via media golden mean judgement on this thorny matter.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

And Irish law isn't entirely compliant with its international treaty obligations either, is it?

Apparently it is compliant with the Constitution though. And haven't we already been here a few pages back?

SMJSF

My view on this has never changed, and probably never will change.

Let a woman abort if she wants to.
She should not have to ask and beg for it to be done.

The woman is more than likely an adult, she can make the choice if she wants to.

The conversation came up about a year ago on a radio station, and it was only males who were pro-life.
Woman want the choice to be available.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Apparently it is compliant with the Constitution though. And haven't we already been here a few pages back?

That's something of a null statement. The constitution is the basis of Irish law; this is essentially to say, Popeye-like "It am what it am". True, but not especially informative.

Have we? Did we all make it out the other side, and was it any the better informed? Clicking, fearfully on your whole-page link, RB seems to think Lisbon has something to do with it. Not personally what I had in mind. If we were to extrapolate from your attitude to other matters, I'd imagine you'll be telling us (and apologies in advance for the presumptuous pre-paraphrase!) "ignore the UN, they can't touch us"; "if the ECHR does anything, complain loudly." But I'm sure you have much nuance to add to that! (Or at least, many objections.)

alaimacerc

SMJSF wrote: »

The conversation came up about a year ago on a radio station, and it was only males who were pro-life.
Woman want the choice to be available.

I'd personally be surprised if it were anything like that clearcut. There's a subgenre of the anti-abortion rhetoric that it's hard to imagine coming out of female mouths (C-sections are minor procedures, being forced to remain pregnant against one's will is a minor lifestyle inconvenience, etc), sure. But I'd want to see at least opinion-polling-grade data broken down by gender (etc) before I made any sweeping assumptions as to who favours what.

While we're speculating, though, how it breaks down by class/income would be fascinating, too. Given the present "legal and relatively accessible if you have a couple of grand to hand" status quo...

Absolam

Frito wrote: »

At 8 weeks she reported she 'couldn't go on like this' (or words to that effect). Personally I would consider this an indication of potential suicidal ideation given the context of her pregnancy and her social circumstances.

The Irish Times interview says she said "I said I am not capable of going through with this. I said I could die because of this." to an IFPA staff member. Not that she could kill herself; that she could die. I would have taken that as she feared for her life if people found out she was pregnant. Even if the staff member were qualified to determine that this expression could 'evolve' into suicidal ideation, they could not state that suicidal ideation existed at the time.

Frito wrote: »

And I would also bear in mind the suicidal ideation may not have evolved due to plans regarding an abortion in uk being actioned.

I wouldn't be surpised if the suiciday ideation began to occur at a point after which the woman realised she could not obtain an abortion in Ireland in her particular circumstances, and that she also wouldn't be provided with the means to travel to another jurisdiction for an abortion.

Frito wrote: »

The only reason I would not consider this potential for suicidal ideation to evolve is if I had asked the woman if she felt suicidal at the prospect of continuing the pregnancy. (The woman does not mention if these questions were asked by the ifpa).

I'm not sure the IFPA staff member would necessarily be well informed on the potential evolution of suicidal ideation, or that it would be part of their remit to assess it?

Frito wrote: »

But my understanding is there does not need to be overt verbalisation of suicidal ideation, only a suspicion, to warrant review by the panel. Yes the panel convened at 23 weeks, but she could have been referred at 8 weeks.

Are you saying the onus was on the IFPA staff member to suspect potential future suicidal ideation and suggest to the woman that she attend a GP who could assess that (as yet unexpressed) wish and convene a panel to review it once it occured? That seems a lot of pressure to put on that person.

Frito wrote: »

At 16 weeks, she verbalised suicidal ideation during contact with ifpa, but her report is that it was a friend (not the ifpa) who advised her to see a GP some time between weeks 16-23.

The (Irish Times) report doesn't say that she verbalised suicidal ideation during contact with the IFPA, it says that she said by the time they told her the problem with going to England was the money she had decided to kill herself; not that she told them so.

Frito wrote: »

We will have to disagree whether there were missed opportunities here (if her account is reliable), not that this is the fault of the ifpa, but a badly designed system.

I'm not sure 'opportunities' is the word I'd use, but it seems to me that aside from the IFPA staff member whom you think should have determined future suicidal ideation, the GP and the panel (who are the only parts of 'the system' here really) acted appropriately and with alacrity?

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

But presumably, not you, given your above clarification, and your endless policing of others' use of the word "rights", to be used only in concordance with what's been determined to hold under Irish law.

Presumably not me what?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Because in Irish law, "obtaining an abortion" and "killing someone" are entirely different categories of activity. Right? (Not that you seem to feel nearly the same need to police those ones, oddly.)

. Hmm, broadly speaking they would both seem to fall into the category of illegal activities in Irish law, if that's what you mean?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Go on, dazzle us with your via media golden mean judgement on this thorny matter.

Flattered as I am by your fascination with my opinion, I'm afraid I used the word 'probably' because I'm not aware of a truly reasonable ethical compromise; the closest that seems to have come about so far is the situation that pertains at the moment. But if I come across one that 'dazzles' I'll be sure to let you know.

PrettyRad

Hi all!

I'm not going to post this as a reply to anybody else, because I rub the opposite direction at the first sign of conflict! But I will post my humble opinions on the matter.

Personally, I am pro-choice. That is NOT to say that I am pro-abortion. I'm not particularly fond of the idea, and certainly can't imagine myself opting for one, but I'm not going to deny another woman the ability to make decisions regarding her own body. If a woman becomes pregnant, and does not want the child for whatever reason, she should be given the option to terminate the pregnancy, after discussing all the options with somebody like a qualified counsellor. The carry a child for nine months against your will must be both physically and mentally draining, and in cases such as rape-pregnancies, a woman should not be put through that.

I understand why pro-lifers are passionate about the cause, but I do not think they have the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her own body. It's for this sanecreason that I can't stand it when men, be it priests or TDs or any old Tom, Dick or Harry protest against abortion. It is not your body, it is not your choice.

On another point, I don't mind peaceful protests from pro-lifers, provided they don't engage in forceful "conversation", wave their banners in your face, practically sign petitions for you or throw around words like murder and inaccurate facts.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's something of a null statement. The constitution is the basis of Irish law; this is essentially to say, Popeye-like "It am what it am". True, but not especially informative.

Well, given much of the discussion has revolved around recent legislation introduced in order to make Irish legislation compliant with the Constitution, perhaps you would have seen more value in the statement, it wasn't but now is compliant with the Constitution? Or to put it in your terms, "I wasn't what I am but I am what I wasn't", if that helps.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If we were to extrapolate from your attitude to other matters, I'd imagine you'll be telling us (and apologies in advance for the presumptuous pre-paraphrase!) "ignore the UN, they can't touch us"; "if the ECHR does anything, complain loudly." But I'm sure you have much nuance to add to that! (Or at least, many objections.)

I'd only object to your imaginative extrapolation; doubtless you find it satisfying to make arguments on others behalf that you can easily deride, but I'm happy enough to stick with making my own arguments thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo

PrettyRad wrote: »

Personally, I am pro-choice. That is NOT to say that I am pro-abortion.

You started off your post saying you do not like replying to others because when you are rubbed up the wrong way..... well like bruce banner says.... you will not like me when I am angry.

But joking aside in my experience.... which is only mine you understand so do not take this feeling as being indicative of anything..... a huge proportion of the anti abortion argument is made from portraying the pro choice side as "pro abortion".

And you need to watch this propoganda rhetoric. The shame filled retreat of one of this forums biggest proponents of this argument.... a user called philologos who does not post on these fora any more after he tucked tail and ran...... is a perfect example of it.

Because the reality is that a large % of pro choice debators, including myself, are actually "anti abortion". We do not want them to happen. We want to do everything there is possible to stop them happening. More education. More and cheaper access to contraceptices, more education on choice and options to people who ARE pregnant. We want it all.

Pro Choice is NOT pro abortion. The Anti choice side are anti abortion at all. The Pro choice side are anti abortion as a first line. Neither group want abortions.

I think some people think that offering a "choice" is like asking someone if they want ketchup or mayo with their fries and you go either way as a whim. Whereas in my experience pro "choice" is like offering someone anti biotics or amputation as a first line of defense........ in that perhaps the word "choice" would be better replaced by "option".

They say every great resolution starts from a point of agreement..... and MY experience tells me that if you ask 100 pro choice..... and 100 anti choice..... people....... how many abortions they HOPE will happen in ireland next year under ANY new legislation...... BOTH groups will near 100% say "none".

And this might be an.... admitedly invented but likely true..... statistic that both sides need to dwell on.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Because the reality is that a large % of pro choice debators, including myself, are actually "anti abortion". We do not want them to happen. We want to do everything there is possible to stop them happening. More education. More and cheaper access to contraceptices, more education on choice and options to people who ARE pregnant. We want it all.
Pro Choice is NOT pro abortion. The Anti choice side are anti abortion at all. The Pro choice side are anti abortion as a first line. Neither group want abortions.

Hopefully I'm not upsetting an otherwise remarkably positive statement of (one) position by pointing out that some posters here would categorise me as 'Anti choice' (and in some respects I would do so myself), but I am not 'anti abortion at all'. That's just me; I don't doubt there are others that have opinions similar, or equally divergent, but still consider themselves Pro Life (as opposed to the somewhat pejorative 'Anti choice'). Having presented such an understanding version of the 'Pro choice side' it seems a pity to pigeonhole the 'Anti choice side' so categorically.

Ralphdejones

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Because the reality is that a large % of pro choice debators, including myself, are actually "anti abortion". We do not want them to happen.

Then presumably you'll be glad the child is alive today instead of having been aborted.